EHESS

Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the Left Opposition in the USSR 1918-1928 Author(s): Yuri Felshtinsky Source: Cahiers du Monde russe et sovitique, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1990), pp. 569-578 Published by: EHESS Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20170750 Accessed: 03/11/2010 02:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ehess. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

EHESS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cahiers du Monde russe et sovitique.

http://www.jstor.org

CHRONIQUE

YURI

FELSHTINSKY

LENIN, TROTSKY, STALIN AND THE LEFT OPPOSITION IN THE USSR 1918-1928
The year 1928 can be considered a major line of demarcation in Soviet history for a whole series of reasons. Internally the country terminated the brief exist ence of NEP, and the forced collectivization of peasant agriculture was begun. In decade of 1918-1927 ended with the the stormy expansionistic foreign policy in China and was replaced by the relatively peaceful revolution unsuccessful In party politics the so-called "Left Opposition" was liqui of 1928-1937. period dated in 1928 as a legitimate political force; its most brilliant representative was Leon Trotsky. attention has been devoted to It cannot be said that little historiographical A bibliography of his writings as well as the works about him would Trotsky. the reasons for his strikingly Nevertheless, occupy many hundreds of pages.1 easy defeat in the struggle for power, and the solitude to which he was always doomed, which found expression in the absence of personal followers, cannot but surprise the historian, as we cannot fail to be surprised by the swiftness of the fall of the originally numerous and resolute Left Opposition -the supporters of Trotsky. In this article an attempt is made to analyze the sources of the Left Opposition in the Bolshevik Party and the reasons for its defeat, as well as the roles played by three Bolshevik leaders, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, in the ideological struggle within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the first years of Soviet power. The article is based largely on materials from Trotsky's Archives preserved by the portions of which have been published Houghton Library at Harvard University, the author in recent years.2 by Leftist oppositions arose in the USSR on two separate occasions, each time at to resolve a moment critical for the Bolshevik system, when it was necessary serious internal policy issues upon which depended either the very existence of the or the success of the revolution in neighboring coun Soviet government, to the Treaty of Brest tries. The classic example of this was the opposition From the point of view of strict Communist Litovsk. interests, the Brest-Litovsk

Cahiers

du Monde

russe e? sovi?tique,

XXXI

(4), oc?obre-d?cembre

1990, pp. 569-578.

570

YURI FELSHTINSKY

It totally destroyed any chance that might have existed treaty was a catastrophe. for a swift revolution in Germany, and therefore signalled the end of hope for immediate revolution in the rest of Europe as well. This was so obvious to the and Left Socialist Revolutionary actives that the majority of their Bolshevik party to Lenin's group, supporting instead took a stand in opposition party officials either the openly leftist position of Nikolai Bukharin, who demanded the declara tion of revolutionary war against all imperialists, or the more careful and undoubt interests) position of edly more "correct" (from the point of view of Communist Trotsky. Lenin's position, in contrast to that of his opponents, was absolutely rationalis tic. Above all else, he was interested in power, even if only for a single day3 in a Only then would it be possible to think single town,4 and as soon as possible.5 In such a scheme of things there was no place for about a European revolution. either the revolutionary romanticism of the Left SRs, or the rhetoric of the Left More importantly, it also left no room even for a swift revolution Communists.6 in Germany, since in such an event the issue of power in Russia would be depriv the center of the worldwide ed of its critical significance: communist movement would shift to Berlin, and the Soviet government of the "United States of Europe" would be headed by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, and certainly not by "truce."7 Lenin, with his opportunistic and "rightist" idea of a Brest-Litovsk The players' cards were laid out as follows: on one side was Lenin, striving to strengthen his authority and that of his group; on the other side were the dogmatic some intuitively and some on the basis of sound reason idealists, understanding, that there would be no place for them in any isolated socialist society, and that ing, it was therefore necessary for them to fight for immediate world revolution as the A brilliant tacti only means of justifying their existence.8 Lenin won that game. in time for the Central he outplayed his opponents cian in party politics, Committee vote on the Brest-Litovsk treaty inMarch 1918 and, having made good use of the indecisiveness of Trotsky and the Left Communists, pushed the treaty also to destroy the rival Left SR Party the Party Congress, managing through during the Congress of Soviets, on 6 July 1918. of the Left SRs, Lenin definitively confirmed his After the destruction It was only at the end of 1922 that a serious rival for Lenin appeared power. He was dangerous above all because, as a the Politburo: Stalin. from within student, he had superbly assimilated the only leadership methods by which it good was possible to maintain a hold on the new type of party: he attempted to seize control of the Lenin organization through a personal "secretariat," and nearly Since the end made an overt statement of his claim.9 Lenin opened the battle. of 1922, however, he had been not only terminally ill, but had also become some control of the events around and had lost considerable what absent-minded him. He created a system of governing "according to Lenin" which was beyond the grasp of anyone other than himself, and proposed to the Politburo a collective leadership, attempting to replace himself with the entire group. Not trusting any single Politburo member enough to name an individual successor, he set forth a of the govern "system of deputies" (sistema zamov) under which the members ment would occupy dual posts in different departments, enabling them to watch over each other. His proposal was not taken seriously in the Politburo. Lenin then drafted the document known as his "Testament," stating the total unfitness of

THE LEFTOPPOSITION INTHE USSR

571

each and every member of the Politburo for the role of head of the govern ment. He again proposed that he be replaced by a collective leadership and that Stalin be removed from power altogether, but did not state who should replace state of mind).10 him (attesting once again to his uncharacteristic The Politburo chose to ignore this document as well, and it would not be accurate to assume that its publication would have been unpleasant for Stalin alone. Lenin's most impor tant miscalculation in this affair was that he wrote a will equally detrimental to all named in it. When American communist Max Eastman referred to the existence of a Lenin "Testament" in a book he published in 1925,11 it was none other than Trotsky who stepped forward with a refutation.12 Extremely self-confident, Trotsky had not bothered to organize a group of per sonal partisans around himself; he was so certain of his own irreplaceability that he had invested all his trust in the revolution itself.13 He was repeatedly proven correct. Even without an organized group of followers, Trotsky was widely considered before October of 1917 to be one of the most prominent of the revolu tionaries, at a time when Lenin needed both money and an organization of follow ers to substantiate his own influence. This became particularly evident in 1917 after Lenin's arrival in Petrograd, when he sought the recognition of his himself group. by traveling Trotsky, who had not compromised through invited to head the Petrograd Soviet. And it was Germany, was in essence - not who remained underground following his most recent failure Lenin, Trotsky (the unsuccessful attempted coup in July) who organized the seizure of power by the Petrograd Soviet, in which the Bolsheviks held a strong majority. Lenin appeared openly in public for the first time only after the uprising was over: on 26 October, at the Second Congress of Soviets, he assumed the authority seized for him by Trotsky and took control of the new government that, in essence, of any disagreements should have been lead by Trotsky himself.14 Regardless they may have had, the post-October period is therefore distinguished by the close ness of the relationship between Lenin and Trotsky. Until the seizure of power, and Lenin struggled against Trotsky was a rival for leadership of the movement, him any way he could. But once he was convinced that this brilliant revolutionary was interested only in the revolution as such, and not in power, Lenin came to see in him only an ally and a friend.15 to oust Stalin, Lenin proposed an alliance to In 1923, trying unsuccessfully more precisely Lenin's illness is taken into account) -he asked (if Trotsky; But Trotsky refused. He wanted no part of Lenin's intrigues, for help. Trotsky even when the target was Stalin, whom Trotsky had always detested and regarded as an inferior. He therefore not only refused to join Lenin in common battle, but There was a certain amount of calculation pointedly took up a neutral position. in this decision. At the moment of Lenin's death in January of 1924, to whom if not Trotsky should the leadership of the Soviet government have belonged? And Trotsky did not rush to assert his power by leaving the southern town of Sukhum in order to attend Lenin's funeral.16 In complete accordance with his principles, he to extend him an invitation to leadership. But the for the Politburo waited Politburo issued no such invitation. It was at this moment, essentially, that the Trotsky opposition, or, more preci sely, the opposition to Trotsky, was born:17 the naming of Rykov to Lenin's post as Chairman of the Sovnarkom amplified the relative authority of the more senior

572

YURI FELSHTINSKY

Stalin in his post as General Secretary. The opposition initially consisted of led by Zinov'ev, Trotsky alone, standing against the majority of the Politburo Kamenev, and Stalin. Trotsky, relying only on revolutionary truisms, and not on a personnal mafia-type organization, at first did not want to admit that they were it as fact, he could not understand and having finally recognized opposing him; He was absolutely correct when he later indicated that his conflict with why. Stalin began before the death of Lenin. But the conflict does not in itself explain Trotsky then began to anything: Trotsky had even greater conflicts with Lenin. an entire theory (in which the most fre formulate, totally in the spirit of Marxism, in an attempt to quently repeated words were "Thermidor," and "bureaucratism") the nature of Stalinism and the essence of his disagreement with it. He explain held Lenin, the system, and himself, totally blameless. Only in 1934 did he write in his diary: "Lenin created the apparatus. The apparatus created Stalin."18 Trotsky's isolation in the face of the Politburo majority's original battle against in their persecution of him him, and the surprising solidarity they demonstrated in 1924-1925, can be explained to a certain extent by psychological factors: the - for his self-assuredness resplendent Trotsky was openly detested in party circles It is not acci bordering on arrogance, for the too-distinct brilliance of his nature. dental that Trotsky, gradually ostracized and excluded from the business of the day, turned out in those years to have no sympathizers, which is attested by the nearly total absence from his archives of documents and letters for the years 1924 1925: he had no one with whom to correspond.19 The situation changed abruptly toward the end of 1925, when Zinov'ev and Stalin was breaking with Kamenev were already beginning to be pushed aside. and former enemies - Trotsky on the one hand, and Zinov'ev and Kamenev them, on the other - were becoming allies.20 At this point, however, they lacked a suf ficient common platform to serve as the basis for a true opposition, and in addition To do so could not openly admit that the issue at stake was a power struggle. would have signified defeat from the start, since the party rank and file would most certainly have supported the current party leadership, rather than its former into a specific It was essential to formulate their areas of disagreement officials. platform, around which it would then be possible to rally a significant number of These areas of disagreement centered on domestic discontented party actives. in 1926: criticism of NEP from the left. policy It would be wrong to assert that the dispute between the Bolshevik party activ who were by that time justifiably labeled "Leftists," ists and the oppositionists, was fabricated, or that Trotsky, Zinov'ev and Kamenev specifically joined together a left-wing (rather than right-wing) for the purpose of defending position by chance. The sincerity of Trotsky's position cannot be doubted: he had always But the historian attempting been on the left wing of the revolutionary spectrum. and Kamenev -who had opposed to explain why the "rightists" Zinov'ev the - later turned of Bolshevik uprising in October of 1917 up in the Left Opposition - the former leader of the Left Communists and a supporter Trotsky, while Bukharin of the revolutionary war - was head of the right wing of the party (which at that time included Stalin as well), runs into enormous difficulties. The opposition formed in 1926 criticized the Soviet government's domestic In the main, however, the opposition came policies on a whole series of issues. out against the private economy, i.e., against NEP, although the criticism was leveled

THE LEFTOPPOSITION INTHE USSR

573

not against the New Economic Policy per se, but rather against the "private owner." Thus lu. G. Piatakov in a "Draft resolution on the economic question" referred to the "growing economic influence of the kulak and the establishment of a union of the middle-level ele peasant (seredniak) with private capitalistic ments."21 Alarm on the score of the increase in "prosperous peasant households" was sounded also by E. Preobrazhenskii.22 They seemed to suggest that if NEP, which represented a compromise between capitalist and socialist forms of economic ownership, did lead to the gradual establishment of a capitalistic market economy, If an individual peasant economy then it was necessary to bring an end to NEP. in the countryside gave rise to a prosperous peasantry, while a collective peasant economy resulted in an impoverished peasantry, then itwas necessary to eliminate And although the opposition did not openly the individual peasant economy. in 1928 Stalin took the demands of the oppositionists to call for this, beginning their logical end. As By itself, however, a platform based on domestic policy was not enough. in 1918, a foreign policy issue was needed as its pivotal point. the Originally, opposition attempted to unleash debate on the subject of the general strike in But the documents distributed by the opposition on this issue, and England. signed by prominent party members, were so badly written as to be incomprehen sible, and the affair on the whole turned out to be most unfortunate and even ridic chose not to return to this topic. They then attempted ulous.23 The oppositionists on issues relating to the to formulate their differences with the government But this rather esoteric debate was impenetrable for the average Komintern.2* issue party member beyond the inner party circles; a distant and incomprehensible It is pos could not be transformed into material for an oppositionist platform. sible that nothing would have come of these efforts to find a foreign policy plat in China, long under preparation, form issue, but then at last the revolution This event was more than adequate for the opposition: the revolution in began. China became the pivotal issue of the conflict. the pattern of 1918, with Lenin's place occupied by followed Everything in 1918, the Stalin, and Trotsky in Bukharin's position. Like the Left Communists that Soviet government policy with Left Opposition convinced the party masses to the revolution's revolution would lead directly regard to the Chinese to take the risk, since he defeat.25 Like Lenin in 1918, Stalin was unwilling understood that active intervention in Chinese affairs would inevitably lead to a conflict with Japan, for which the Soviet Union was clearly unprepared. Finally, just as Lenin had done in his time, Stalin sacrificed a revolution abroad, in China in this case, for the sake of a truce analogous to that brought about by the Brest Litovsk treaty: the Chinese revolution did suffer defeat, but time was gained, and the first serious conflict with Japan broke out only in 193826. There is not adequate space here to analyze the real and imaginary differences and foreign policy stands of Stalin's government between the domestic and It is sufficient to indicate that Stalin resolved the develop Trotsky's opposition. ing problem more gracefully than Lenin had a decade earlier: having only begun to expel the oppositionists from the party, Stalin succeeded in obtaining their Further events pro agreement to capitulate and cease their factional activities.27 vide a textbook image of Stalin's tactics: his next step was to incorporate the pro in its entirety, into his own arsenal,28 thus gram of his capitulating opponents,

574

YURI FELSHTINSKY

in their fight against the government. In depriving them of their only weapons addition, he went even further in the realization of his new program than had the - he did not merely limit the Nepman's options, but abolished NEP oppositionists as such; he did not stop with the imposition of restrictive measures altogether As a result, his against the peasantry, but implemented forced collectivization. the opposi victory over the opposition was absolute: politically and ideologically Their physical destruction would come somewhat later. And tion was destroyed. in January 1929, the Left Opposition with Trotsky's expulsion from the USSR from the Soviet Union forever. disappeared Brookline, Mass. 1990.

Louis

1. English scholar Louis Sinclair spent many 2 vols Sinclair, Trotsky: A bibliography, another survey of works by and about Trotsky, fur Geschicke Ost europas, in Germany. currently being published a collection came out with of Trotsky's four volume collection uvres of

Jahrbucher

his bibliography of Trotsky's works: years compiling For (Aldershot, Great Britain: Scolar Press, 1989). see Rolf Burner, "Alte und neue Trockij-Editionen," A multi-volume is 37, 3 (1989): 393-414. Trotsky collection In the 1970's and early 1980's Pathfinder Press in New York

works the period 1923-1940. A twenty encompassing works edited in France: Trotsky's by Pierre Brou? was published L?on Trotsky, To this brief list may be added three (Institut L?on Trotsky, 1978-1988). J. Carmichael, 1980); Isaac Deutschere Trotsky (Jerusalem, Trotsky biographies: trilogy, The prophet and The prophet outcast armed, The prophet unarmed, Press, 1954, 1959, 1963); (Oxford University and Pierre Brou?, Trotsky (Paris: Arth?me Fayard, 1988). of Trotsky are beginning to be Biographies in Eastern Europe. In the Soviet Union a small biographical brochure on Trotsky has been published written by the historian V. Startsev, and Hungarian historian Miklos Kun is currently working on a Trotsky biography. 2. In recent years

in the original Russian, the following Trotsky works have been published edited Publications, 1984); Stalin, 2 vols (Benson, Vermont: Chalidze by the author of this article: Portreiy i pis'ma Chalidze 1986; 2nd enlarged Publications, 1985); Dnevniki (Benson, Vermont: (Hermitage, in 1990); Por?re?y Vermont: edition revoliutsionerov Chalidze, (Benson, 1988); published v SSSR, 1923-1927. 4 vols arkhiva L. D. Trolskogo, Kommunisiicheskaia Dokumenty oppozitsiia 1933-1935 1988); P. Pomper co-editor, Troisky's notebooks, (Benson, Vermont: Chalidze, (Columbia iz ssylki. Sialina 1928 Press, 1990, in press); Pis'ma 1986); Pres?upleniia (Liberty, University 1990) (in preparation). (Benson, Vermont: Chalidze publications, to Arthur in Petrograd, Lenin declared 3. On the seventy-third solemnly day of Soviet power a British for the Manchester that the fundamental Ransome, Guardian, goal of the correspondent the Bolsheviks had held out for one day longer than the revolution had already been achieved: Russian and the fall of Soviet power now would not be terrible, since its most Paris Commune, important to the worldwide had already been made. communist movement contribution in 1918 what would if the Germans asked Lenin 4. When attacked and took Trotsky happen : Lenin answered Moscow, basin is rich in coal. We will "We will retreat farther, to the east, to the Urals [...] The Kuznetskii form a Ural-Kuznetskii coal, and that portion industry and Kuznetsk republic, supported by coal-based If necessary, we will go even that we could bring with us. [...] and Petrograd workers of the Moscow the Urals. We will go all the way to Kamchatka, but we will hold out." farther to the east, beyond "The concept of a Ural-Kuznetskii to him, essential Trotsky commented: republic was organically in order to strengthen himself and others be no place for a strategy of despair." in the conviction (L. Trotsky, that nothing was yet lost and that there could O L?nine. dlia biografii (Moscow, Materialy to the first part of Trotsky's book, (Leningrad: Rabochee

1924):88-89).
5. 7977 In the article (Moscow, 1924), as an introduction "Uroki Oktiabria," published in the book, Ob "Urokakh and re-published Oktiabria"

THE LEFTOPPOSITION INTHE USSR 575

in hiding in izd-vo Priboi, 1917, while 1924): 220-262, Trotsky describes how as early as September In Trotsky's opinion, however, in Petrograd. to lead a revolution "the plan Finland, Lenin proposed of the Soviet, which could not be carried out in the name of the Petrograd Soviet, since the organization as it should have been, was not conducive to this: the Military had not yet been bolshevized, did not yet exist.*' 1: Committee (Kommunisticheskaia (1923-1926), oppozitsiia Revolutionary character of Lenin's 125). Trotsky was not the only one to remark on the adventuristic appeal. V. Nogin stated that this was a call "to a repetition of the July [1917] events," On the whole, the Central Committee in op. cit.: 238). ("Uroki Oktiabria," Lenin's proposal (ibid: 247). i.e., to certain defeat of the party rejected

6. The former were destroyed by Lenin as a competing party on 6-7 July 1918; the latter, who were the incident members of his own organization (the Bolshevik Party), he did not subject to repressions; was persecuted was consigned to oblivion. for a with the Left Communists Only one Left Communist head of the VChK, was suspended from work, but only because his participa short time: Dzerzhinskii, von Mirbach, was obvious to Count Wilhelm of the German Ambassador, tion in the assassination Lenin. But since the murder itself, and the fact that itwas committed by a Left SR, la. Blumkin, were was soon reinstated in his former position, to Lenin, Dzerzhinskii and Blumkin was advantageous and returned to his work in Dzerzhinskii's into the RKP(b) agency, where he made a brilliant accepted in November career for himself in counterintelligence 1929 for his ties with (until his execution of this affair, see lu. G. Felshtinsky, Bolsheviki i levye esery, For more detailed discussion Trotsky). - iul' 1918 "The Bolsheviks and the Left SRs, oktiabr'1917 (Paris, 1985); and Yuri Felshtinsky, 1917 October (Ph. D. diss., Rutgers University, 1988). July 1918: Toward a single-party dictatorship" quite on 15 January 1919 were quite and Rosa Luxemburg 7. In this sense, themurders of Karl Liebknecht to suggest that Lenin had anything to do with their for Lenin. While there is no evidence advantageous that another prominent Bolshevik leader, Karl Radek, was involved in themurders. deaths, it is possible were apparently and Luxemburg for the attempt on the lives of Liebknecht The initial preparations made Berlin, In 1920 Anton Fischer, 1918. the deputy military in the first half of December commandant of over the two had maintained that his department surveillance stated in a written deposition activities." On the leaders so as "not to allow them to conduct agitational and organizational Spartacus burst who into the editorial offices of turned out not to be on the six witnesses stated that a reward

the soldiers of the Second Guards Regiment night of 9-10 December and Luxemburg, Rote Fahne with the intention of killing Liebknecht In the course of the investigation into this incident, roughly premises.

for the murders of Liebknecht and had been offered in the amount of 100,000 marks - a Social Scheidemann German This prize was promised by Philipp prominent Luxemburg. from February Democrat who was head of the government through June of 1919, and his close friend - a who had become wealthy during the war trading in arms for the German businessman Georg Sklarz v Eine Deutsche 1918-19 Revolution Rowohlt [n.d.]: 153; Revoliutsiia army (Sebastian Haffher, translation from German 1918-19. Kak eto bylo v deistvitel'nosti?, Germanii (Moscow: Progress, 1983): 158,163). of Parvus's, planned the attempt The investigation begun in 1920 showed that Sklarz, a collaborator on Liebknecht in collusion with Parvus and Scheidemann, and that Sklarz and Luxemburg, apparently was to have paid a reward of 50,000 marks for each of the Spartacus leaders (see the Government It is true that Radek's name is not mentioned Archive of the FRG, R 43-1, folder 1239, The Sklarz Case). in connection with the January 1919 assassinations of but it surfaces in the Sklarz materials, Karl Liebknechts brother Theodore devoted his life to the investigation and Luxemburg. Liebknecht of these murders. came to the conclusion a German Social Democrat, that Karl Radek was defi Liebknecht, in the course of his investigation The materials he collected involved in the murders. perished in November of 1943 (Archives of the International Institute of raid on Germany during a bombing in German by folder 10, diary notations in Amsterdam, Theodore Liebknecht Social History collection, the famous Russian emigre historian and archivist, But in 1947, Boris I. Nicolaevsky, T. Liebknecht). a secret collaborator with the German a letter asking about Karl Moore, wrote Theodore Liebknecht "I have every reason to suppose," wrote Nicolaevsky, "that among the Social Democrats. government Theodore nitely your brother Karl met serious argument with Nicolaevsky B. Nicolaevsky Radek with Radek Karl Moore." not and Karl Moore (Hoover Institution Nicolaevsky), 15 December long before his last arrest, and had a very Stanford University, Archives, California, box 489, folder 2, letter from one-page 1947, in German). the role of Liebknecht

Collection (hereafter to T. Liebknecht dated

In response, Theodore about his conclusions Liebknecht told Nicolaevsky concerning in the deaths of his brother and Rosa Luxemburg. The correspondence between

576

YURI FELSHTINSKY

on this subject is not to be found in the Nicolaevsky at the Hoover Collection and Nicolaevsky was quite extensive, to Marx); but was devoted primarily Institution Archives (their correspondence to this there is an allusion these letters are also missing from the archive of T. Liebknecht. However, to a third person. in a letter from Nicolaesvsky "Theodore Liebknecht told me," sta correspondence at their last meeting "that Karl Liebknecht ted Nicolaevsky, (on the eve of Karl's arrest) told him that he had found out about Radek, who had just arrived illegally from Moscow, 'appalling things' which he never took place, and Theodore to recount at the time of their next meeting. That meeting felt promised box 508, that Radek had betrayed Karl." folder 48, one-page letter from B. I. (Nicolaevsky, to R. [Georgii Iosifovich] Vrag dated 15 July 1960). Nicolaevsky dated 20 April In a letter to the Italian socialist A. Balabanova 1962 (Archive of the International A. Balabanova Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, collection), Nicolaevsky spelled out what preci had found out about Radek: sely Karl Liebknecht now I recall my past conversations with Theodore Liebknecht, who indicated "Especially frequently arrest he met Theodore tome that Radek betrayed Karl [Liebknecht]. On the eve of Karl Liebknecht's on the street and on the way said that he had received information regarding Radek's ties with military tomeet the next day, at which time Karl circles, and considered him a traitor. They made arrangements was arrested and killed. was All to have recounted the details - but that night Karl Liebknecht and told me that he was convinced of the accuracy through the next years Theodore gathered evidence, stories seriously enough at the of his brother's suspicions [...] I regret that I did not take Theodore's time, and did not write them down." a letter on the same subject to the former wrote In 1957 Nicolaevsky leader of the French Communist Party, Boris Souvarine, who had by that time abandoned Communism: ? I on this subject with Theodore Liebknecht who considered both (deceased), spoke extensively to be agents of the Ger[man] He assured me that the Radek and especially Karl Moore general staff. same conclusion who had a conversation regarding Radek had also been reached by Karl Liebknecht, at their last meeting. on this subject with Theodore crush Karl, in Theodore's words, was completely from whom Theodore then from someone did not know. ? he had received ed by information Archive of B. Souvarine, letter from Nicolaevsky Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, (International to M.N. Pavlovskii, And in 1962 he wrote who was studying to B. Souvarine dated 11 April 1957). in the pre-revolutionary collaboration period: in the assassination did not participate Radek [of Karl Liebknecht directly secret service them [the German The subject was something else, the fact that Radek provided Y.F.]. address, and that in return they spared Radek from arrest. [...] I have to say I am Y.F.] Liebknecht's in Theodore Liebknecht's tales is untrue. He was an absolutely honest not certain that everything to light in the he was totally correct regarding Karl Moore, he brought much man, very knowledgeable, To me it is unquestionable that Radek affair of his brother's murder, [and] had some good informants. Bolshevik-German ? Of course, secret agents. linked with very major German (Stalin did not shoot him in 1937, undoubtedly because he figured on using his old contacts), and therefore in this matter we can still run across much ? to folder 3, one-page letter from B. Nicolaevsky box 496, that is unexpected. (Nicolaevsky, M.N. Pavlovskii dated 2 September 1962). considered Of course, these materials are not in themselves sufficient to allow Radek to be definitively and Luxemburg. one of the organizers of Liebknecht But they are more behind the assassinations in the murders in some fashion. than adequate to place Radek under suspicion of participating was and for the majority for the supporters of Trotsky, of the Left SRs the issue of building Communism in a by their greater dogmatism), to stipulate one reser it an impossibility. It is necessary single country did not exist: they considered in an "isolated country" turned out to be en vation at this point. Ultimately, building Communism roman the destruction of those Communist but doing so, as we now know, necessitated tirely possible, rather than proceeding tics who would agree to build it only in accordance with maximalist dogma, as we are of Stalin's cam In retrospect, from the actual state of affairs in Soviet Russia. cognizant 8. For (distinguished the Left Communists, from the Bolsheviks to salute the intuition of those who in 1936-1939, it is appropriate to purge the old Bolsheviks in one country": it at the time, but in defending their "socialism they may not have known opposed views, they were fighting for their lives. 9. Stalin's intentions were shown by the so-called "Georgian affair", by his quarrel with Krupskaia, which was followed by a rift in his personal relations with the dying Lenin, and also his announcement that Lenin had asked him for poison and Kamenev to members of the Politburo Trotsky, Zinov'ev to commit suicide (see L. Trotskii, Portrety with which revoliutsionerov, op. cii.: 92-96). Trotsky to hasten Lenin's death. to use this method later thought that Stalin wished paign

THE LEFTOPPOSITION INTHE USSR 577

" in see the appendix entitled, "From the documents of 1922, 1: 60-74. op. cit., Kommunis?icheskaiaoppozi?siia..., 11. See Max Eastman, Since Lenin died (London: The Labor Publishing Company Ltd., 1925): 28 that he took down the quotations from the words indicated elsewhere from the "Testament" 31. Eastman The question of how Lenin's "Testament" was transmitted to theWest, of three prominent Bolsheviks. and Trotsky's related famous denial, also require clarification. One source indicates that during a break 10. For a more detailed discussion between sessions of the XHIth Congress, Trotsky, while strolling the corridor, recited the text of Lenin's to Eastman, who was a guest at the congress box 591, folder 14, two-page "Testament" (Nicolaevsky, to N.V. Valentinov-Vol'skii letter from R. Abramovitch dated January 1959). Trotsky spoke with care so that he would not be overheard, but did not extract a pledge of silence from Eastman. At about the same time aMenshevik who had been working on the staff of A. Sol'tz stole the text of the "Testament"

in the Menshevik Sotsialisticheskii and smuggled it abroad for publication vestnik. The publication, Menshevik the document, but its source was discovered, and, in 1924, executed organ published (see to N.I. Sedova-Trotskaia dated folder 13, letter from B.I. Nicolaevsky box 628, Nicolaevsky, at Harvard University is 23 December The text of the "Testament" held by the Trotsky Archive 1950). a copy of the Sotsialisticheskii There is himself. vesinik version, retyped for Trotsky by Nicolaevsky This to suppose that the text of Lenin's "Testament" was also carried abroad by Kh. Rakovskii. to Eastman on 21 May 1931 (Max Eastman Archive, from a letter written by Trotsky Lilly see cit.: also L. Trotskii Indiana revolutsionerov, USA; op. Portreiy University, Library, in English in in his book published Therefore when Max Eastman quoted from the "Testament" 123). a considerable 1925, Since Lenin died, it should not have caused any particular sensation. Nevertheless, carried a reprint of the story of Lenin's from sensation resulted. Time magazine "Testament" reason follows had chosen not to react to publication of the the Soviet government And whereas Eastman's book. in Sotsialisticheskii document vestnik, Trotsky himself responded to the article in Time. Acting on the he issued a formal statement denying that a document called "Lenin's instructions of the Politburo came out in print with a similar state Testament" existed, and accused Eastman of lying. Krupskaia received the full text of the "Testament" ment. and Somewhat later, Eastman through Rakovskii the full text of the document. and then, castigated by Trotsky and Krupskaia, Time published Souvarine, 12. See L. Trotskii, Portrety revoliutsionerov, op. cit.: 123. in 1917, Lenin suggested to Trotsky in forming his alliance with Trotsky that he bring 13. When, between the his own people from the "mezhraiontsy" (a group of Social Democrats standing midway into the Bolshevik Central Committee, He since and the Bolsheviks) refused. Mensheviks Trotsky should insist on this, since they had, after all, no rely could not understand why Lenin felt he, Trotsky, at that point. ideological differences 14. One of the reasons Trotsky was not asked to head the Sovnarkom (the Council was apparently his nationality. It was generally considered Commissars) inappropriate for a head of state. For this reason, there were no Jews on the Sovnarkom staff appointed a Russian, became Chairman of the Sovnarkom, After Lenin's death Rykov, Trotsky. Zinov'ev of People's a Jew to be other than rather than

or Kamenev, both of whom were Jews. but Lenin trusted Trotsky, and in every critical moment 15. Lenin and Trotsky had disagreements, is complex, but it its obvious The history of their relationship that Lenin's relations relied upon him. were complicated. with many Lenin proposed and of the leading Bolsheviks Zinov'ev expelling He proposed the 1917 October revolution. from the party for opposing Stalin Kamenev removing in 1923, and his relations with Bukharin were in fact broken off in from the post of General Secretary fell into disfavor with Lenin after the Dzerzhinskii the months of the Brest-Litovsk negotiations. in plans to assassinate events of 6-7 July, when Lenin the German suspected him of participating It also is probable in the to Moscow, that Sverdlov's loss of authority Ambassador Count Mirbach. the only of his life was the result of difficulties with Lenin. last months Trotsky was literally into serious conflict with Lenin who did not enter after October 1917. Their pre conflicts had been washed away by the revolution. revolutionary to explain Trotsky's behavior during these months have repeatedly been made 16. Attempts -by At least one additional hypothesis Party. Trotsky himself and by historians of the Soviet Communist can be added to those already proposed: Trotsky, always holding himself apart from the group and an outsider in the Bolshevik considered Party, chose not to support Lenin in the hope that the escalating on the other, would discredit power struggle between Lenin on one side, and Stalin-Zinov'ev-Kamenev the "troika" in the eyes of the party actives, and thus strenghten his own authority. Bolshevik 17. The the presentation fact that Trotsky did not at this time consider opposing of the forty-six" to the Politburo of "The declaration the Politburo is demonstrated by TsK RKP (b) on 15 October 1923

578

YURI FELSHTINSKY
the policies criticizing this document. of the government

1: 83-88), (see Kommunis?icheskaia oppozitsiia..., op.cit., Trotsky's majority. signature is not among the forty-six on 18. Trotsky'snoiebooks... op. cit.: 129. from 1924, there is the archival materials 19. Among a verbose in November in response article written ments,"

"Our disagree only one such document: to the critics of his earlier article, "Uroki In reading it, one is startled 1: 110-142). Oktiabria" (see Kommunis?icheskaia op.cii., oppozi?siia..., sincerity in his inability to understand why this article, a forty-page by Trotsky's apologia on behalf of the censure of the most prominent party officials - Zinov'ev, Kamenev, the party and Lenin, provoked the editor of Pravda. to G. Sokol'nikov, He attempted E. Kviring, O.Kuusinen, Stalin, and Bukharin, reasons for their "disagreements," at a time when the issue was a straightfor the underlying discover ward prising

is striking in its na?vet?. "Our disagreements," It is not sur struggle against Trotsky himself. to the that a few months later, instead of using the army as his base and standing in opposition on 15 January 1925 Trotsky his post as Chairman of the voluntarily resigned party majority, thus surrendering Council, any real power at his command (see the letter from Revolutionary Military in M. Eastman, Since Lenin died, op. cii.: 155-158). The Russian Trotsky regarding his resignation in the same year as a separate brochure under the title "Otstavka text of this letter was published of Trotsky. TsK 17 ianvaria 1925 g." Central Committee Zasedanie (The resignation Trotskogo. remained a politically naive man until the end of his of 17 January 1925) (Berlin). Trotsky meeting of the party that power had been transferred to the bureaucrats life. He thus could not comprehend of the October days. It is not surprising that apparatus, and was no longer held by the revolutionaries on a biography in emigration inMexico of Stalin, Trotsky attempted at the end of the 1930's, working to recall the year of his expulsion from the Politburo and could not. the drafts of the book on Among Stalin in the Trotsky archive there is the following note in pencil: "It seems that already in 1927 I was no longer amember of the Politburo? Verify." a note to himself: with 1925 Trotsky made "Alliance Zinov'ev" 20. On 9 December It is therefore possible 1: 152-157). (Kommunis?icheskaia oppozi?siia... op.cii., as dating from December 1925. tion of the Left Opposition \22-\32. 21. Seeibid.,2: 22. 23. Ibid.: 121-122. In July to refer to the forma

over the signatures of Zinov'ev, 1926 the opposition Piatakov distributed, Kamenev, on the general strike in a "Resolution to the July Plenum by the Opposition proposed three pages of closely typed, single-spaced text). (Trotsky's Archive, T-886, England" text. 24. See ibid, T-886, dated 19 June 1926, three pages of closely typed, single-spaced were devoted to this distributed by the oppositionists 25. A substantial number of the documents The articles written on this subject by Trotsky alone would fill a volume of several hundred subject. and Krupskaia, at Harvard dealing in Trotsky's Archive documents For a list of unpublished Russian-language pages. in China, see Kommunis?icheskaia with the revolution op. cii., 4: 7. oppozi?siia..., the Far East, Siberia, 26. It was only in 1937 that creation of a strong industrial base in the Urals, and Central Asia was begun. Today that fact is usually cited as evidence of the foresight of Kazakhstan and the consequent in fairly predicting the war with Germany evacuation of the Soviet leadership industry during the war years. Approaching was Japan. In the summer of 1937 Japan serious foreign policy defeat for the Soviet In July the Japanese in China. position of 1938 December By October Nanking. lines of China were controlled by Japan. of 1937. September least two occasions: A confrontation the end of the thirties, the Soviets' primary foreign enemy an attack on China, an event that represented a to strengthen which had been attempting its government, launched seized in November Peking, the major industrial centers railroad in its part, occupied Mongolia on at that led to local conflicts they took Shangai, and most important and in

The Soviet Union, for the two armies began between at the end of June 1938 in the region of Lake Khasan, where to troops continued river inMongolia, where the conflict was and inMay 1939, along the Khalkin-Gol fight until 9 August, of Germany, contained shortly after the signing of the Ribbentrop only through the intervention 1939. The creation of a second industrial base in the eastern regions Molotov pact on 16 September base near of the Soviet Union was thus occasioned exclusively by the desire to guarantee an economic a potential military front. were on 10 December 27. The opposition 1927, after a number of its active members capitulated of oppositionist arrested, and the party congress adopted a resolution on the incompatibility activity see Kommunis?icheskaia For the text of the declaration, with party membership. oppozi?siia..., op. cii., 4: 275-276. 28. See ibid.: 276, a note written by N. Muralov to Trotsky, 18 December 1927.